Reading Prudence

A glimmer of transparency as Mr. HL Lee releases a seven-page letter on ‘Rules of Prudence’ to his PAP MPs-elect. It is a little late, with all the Gomez overhang of the elections when leadership and ideas were meant to be showcased. Better than never. Nevertheless, it is great to see our country’s leader for the next half-a-decade moving on and rallying his troops in a heartening manner, without spin, slogan or slip. It is also a good move to release the letter to the public, in Mr. Lee’s words, ‘so that the public knows the high standards we demand of our MPs’ (p. 9; future opposition candidates take note please). Public relations jazz, as some cynics may read the letter. Not to me, as this is a catchy rap that deserves a closer read.

First, a reading in relation to the 66.6% of the votes that Mr. Lee has read as ‘The people have given us a strong mandate’ (p. 1). The PAP leadership seems to be sensing that the people are also giving them a strong message with the results. Hence, the titular keyword is ‘prudence’: the exercise of careful thought about the consequences of one’s action, often related to the consideration of risks. So what is the PAP leadership's reading of citizen sentiments?

Allow me to paraphrase the first point of Mr. Lee’s reading as though it is coming from a citizen: ‘Listen to [us]. Do not think that just because you have become [our] MP, you know all the answers.’ (p. 1). Spot on. But do remember, in order for proper ‘listening’ and for you to ‘help [us] to understand and support policies which will benefit [us], and Singapore, in the longer term’, we need to get rid of the climate of fear of chastisement, silencing and censorship, which goes against Mr. Lee’s dictum, ‘be humble, not arrogant’. If we don’t talk freely, you can’t listen well. When we can’t talk freely, we don’t listen either, thus you can’t talk and will become arrogant, since you can’t help nodding bootlickers and hearing-impaired apathetics understand anything.

Second, a reading in relation to the content of the letter, perhaps signifying a trend that worries the PAP leadership. A full four pages of seven is given to the separation of ‘public political position’ from ‘private business or professional interests’ (p. 3). The issue is multidimensional, from staying away from those who ‘will cultivate you in order to obtain benefits for themselves or their companies, to gain respectability by association with you, or to get you to influence ministries and statutory boards to make decisions in their favour’ (p. 2), the proper acceptance of directorships (p. 4) and gifts (p. 6), proper conduct of fund-raising and personal financial affairs, to the declaration of income and interests to the prime minister in confidence (p. 6).

This is indeed all good and prudential. But in my reading, it is as worrying as it is comforting. Already, the readings of PAP MP-elects are skewed to this particular aspect of the letter, as can be seen in the Straits Times interview of five PAP MP-elects (May 18, 2006, p. H4), where all five stressed the separation of political service and personal interests as important or as Mr. Charles Chong more succinctly put it, ‘an issue in recent years’. It shows how much Money is getting entangled with Government, the Corporation with the State. The close meshing of our business, professional, bureaucratic and political elites is worrying without a system of checks and balances. Surely, a letter from the party leader complete with a schedule of directorships to be submitted yearly to the government whip and confidential disclosure of income to the listening ear of the prime minister do not constitute an adequate system of checks. Not prudent enough. I loathe waiting for litigious intra-elite quarrels such as the NKF-SPH case to bring out imprudence, as it will be too late for our ‘confidence and trust’ (p. 1). From another angle, this close meshing is also a worrying read. Can the business and professional elites making up the large part of the PAP’s ‘self-renewal in the political leadership’ (p. 1) truly represent the working and middling masses in parliament?

Third and therefore, a reading in relation to political representation. No, not a quibble about how 33.3% of the voters will be under-represented by two opposition MPs. But really, what is one to read in the instruction that ‘MPs are expected to attend all sittings of Parliament’, that ‘all MPs should speak up’ during the Budget Debate, that MPs should ‘speak freely and with conviction’, that ‘over time, the public will see that PAP backbenchers are as good as the opposition MPs, if not better, at holding ministers to account, and getting issues fully debated’ (p. 5)? Is the last statement an oblique-but-graceful tip of the hat by Mr. Lee to Mr. Chiam See Tong and Mr. Low Thia Khiang for a job well done? If it is, stop punishing their constituents via slum-formation for having given Singapore two prudent opposition MPs who have been good ‘at holding ministers to account and getting issues fully debated’.

Is this instruction an implicit admission that something is amiss in the representation of the people’s views in parliament? It is not that ‘the public expects PAP MPs to express their views, whether for or against Government policies’ (p. 5). Rather, the very raison d’etre of an MP, the reason for being an MP, is to represent the people’s view in parliament. It is not ‘robust debate’ per se (p. 5) that we want to see in parliament, but the representation of the diverse views held by citizens. On closer reflection, it seems somewhat ridiculous that MPs should be encouraged to speak up, for what else are they supposed to do but to represent their constituents in parliament? This is an important point that loops back into the question of ‘humble’ PAP MPs ‘listening’ to their constituents. The reason why Mr. Chiam and Mr. Low have been humble in listening and effective in parliament is because they have to fight for the votes of their constituents, to fight to represent them.

On the other hand, the PAP backbenchers do not have to fight half as much, if at all, under the GRC system, since they ride on the credentials of the ministers helming the GRC team. This is contradictory, as it appears that they need the ministers more than they need the voters. How can we depend on them to hold the ministers they depend on ‘to account’? And surely, we cannot be expected to trust them to be humble on account of a letter, no matter how important and significant it is, from Mr. Lee. The problem lies not so much in the character of the candidates in the selection process as how a better political system (not party system) can be instituted to ensure the desired ‘humility’ and ‘prudence’ of our MPs in representing our views in parliament.

So, while we wait for a better resolution of the underlying problems instead of treating the symptoms, yes, we shall hold the MPs to the high standards the PAP leadership has rightly demanded of them.